DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waddell US 2020/0388994 (hereafter Waddell).
Regarding claim 1, Waddell teaches a removable self-cleaning assembly (assembly comprising electrode 40 in Fig 1) for cleaning at least one electrode (40) of an electronic air cleaner (¶1), the removable self-cleaning assembly comprising:
a mounting bracket (16 and optionally 18/20/12), the mounting bracket being removably connectable to the electronic air cleaner (as shown in Fig 9);
a support shaft (48);
a connecting member (46) having at least one arm (arms shown extending from pivot), the connecting member being operatively coupled to the support shaft (¶48) and being rotatable about an axis (central vertical axis); and
at least one cleaning body (54) arranged at a portion of the at least one arm; and
a motor (30) operably coupled to the support shaft (¶48), wherein the support shaft extends through the mounting bracket (as show in in Figs 11-12).
The self-cleaning assembly as claimed is removable in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, and 2173.05(g) in that the components are fully capable of being separated/removed from other components of the electronic air cleaner.
Regarding claim 2, Waddell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Waddell further teaches wherein the at least one arm further comprises a plurality of arms (two arms shown in Fig 1, each arm extending from the pivot) and the at least one cleaning body includes a plurality of cleaning bodies (two cleaning bodies 54 as shown in Fig 9), each of the plurality of cleaning bodies being arranged at a portion of one of the plurality of arms (as shown in Fig 9).
Regarding claim 3, Waddell teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Waddell further teaches wherein the plurality of arms includes a first arm and a second arm (two arms of 46 extending from the pivot) and a length of the first arm is equal to a length of the second arm (as shown in Fig 1 where the arms are approximately the same length).
Regarding claim 5, Waddell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Waddell further teaches the at least one cleaning body is located near an end of the at least one arm (as shown in claim 9 where the body is located near the end of the length of the arm).
Regarding claim 6, Waddell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Waddell further teaches wherein the at least one cleaning body is located near a central portion of the at least one arm (as shown in claim 9 where the body is located near the center of the width of the arm).
Regarding claim 7, Waddell teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Waddell further teaches wherein the mounting bracket further comprises a plurality of pieces (16/18/20 and 12), the plurality of pieces being removably connected to one another (as shown in Fig 9).
Regarding claim 8, Waddell teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Waddell further teaches wherein a hollow interior (interior within 16/18/20/12, as shown in Figs 11-12) is formed between the plurality of pieces and the motor is mounted within the hollow interior (as shown in Figs 11-12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waddell as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Waddell teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Waddell further teaches wherein the plurality of arms includes a first arm and a second arm (two arms of 46 extending from the pivot).
Waddell does not teach wherein a length of the first arm is different from a length of the second arm.
MPEP §2144.04 IV A states that changes in size/proportion do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relative length of the two arms of Waddell (arms of 46 as shown in Fig 1) by making the first and second arms of different lengths in order to allow one electrode to be placed farther from the pivot than the other and as a matter of obvious change in size/proportion (MPEP §2144.04 IV A).
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 12 Jan. 2026:
Applicant argues that “Waddell fails to teach a motor operably coupled to the support shaft extending from the connecting member through the mounting bracket to the motor”.
Examiner disagrees. Waddell teaches a motor (30) operably coupled to the support shaft (48) extending from the connecting member (46) through the mounting bracket to the motor. Fig 9 shows the support shaft and 8 shows where the support shaft extends through the bracket 16.
Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that the motor disclosed in Waddell is not removable from the ionizer as parts of a removable self-cleaning assembly”.
Examiner disagrees. As shown in Fig 9, the motor is a separate part within the ionizer. As such, the motor would be fully capable of being removed in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, and 2173.05(g).
Applicant argues that “because of the cleaning apparatus extends through the housing the motor is not removable from the housing with the cleaning apparatus”.
Examiner disagrees. The mounting bracket (comprising 16 in Waddell) is a component of the removable self-cleaning assembly. Therefore motor does not need to be removed from the housing in order to teach the claimed feature. Further, the cleaning apparatus extending through the housing is “releasable engaged” via bore 50 (Waddell ¶48). Thus, the connecting member 46 can be disengaged from the shaft 48.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights